">'); win.document.writeln(''); win.document.writeln(''); }
 

The Indefinite Article.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

I think that

the smoking ban passed in Austin.

posted by pablo at 8:53 PM

5 Comments:

  • Yes is did, 51 point something odd to the rest, with not many people voting. Check out Austinist's funny illustration. Burnt Orange Report is more circumspect about it.

    By Blogger Adolph, at 9:57 PM  

  • amen to that, sara.

    By Blogger Killy, at 8:28 AM  

  • Houston still has the worst air pollution north of the Rio Grande. Second hand smoke is the least of your problems.
    However it is great.
    It is a matter of baby steps.
    Austin's first step was way back in 96'
    when they passed the first no smoking ordinance.
    NO smoking indoors before 9:30 or 10.
    Then Last year with the overly compromised no smoking ban.
    They got it right this time.
    Mostly it stems from Austin's conceited third coast mentality.
    Since San Fran. and New York have no smoking laws.
    Austin thinks that it is on par with their Omni-culture progressive ways.
    They want to eat macrobiotic "raw" foods, do yoga, be rock stars-movie-stars, thinking they are worldly while they drive their H2s.
    Could care less about second hand smoke.
    I want a decent non-compromised mass transit system. Maybe some bike lanes. Better sidewalks.

    By Blogger taggart, at 12:51 PM  

  • One of the things that the smoking ban has going for it over of AC buses and bike lanes is that it is effectively no/low cost. Although, as I say that, I see the fallacy. Enforcement isn't a free lunch. Assuming the zero cost of criminalization is a mistake that the Legislative Budget Board makes constantly. Any law has cost and whenever you have something that bans an activity, the state (in the generic sense of the word) has to enforce it by detecting law-breaking through the police, levying fines or sentences through the courts, holding people to their sentences through prisons, probations, collections. Doh, why did I vote for that thing!

    By Blogger Adolph, at 1:29 PM  

  • Additionally, I think that the people behind the smoking ban committed a pretty big law-making faux pas in the sense that many businesses made substantial investments in ventilation to meet the law passed two years ago. By visiting the same issue before the capital goods were amortized, the pro-ban folks are effectively making that investment a loss. This will guarantee that business owners will find fighting a slippery slope less expensive than complying next time.

    By Blogger Adolph, at 1:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home